D&D General In defence of Grognardism

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, I don't think it's really arguable that earlier editions both had mathematics that favored a higher likelihood of death (lower HP, higher monster damage, save-or-die effects...sometimes no-save-just-die effects...) and advice/presentation targeted at DMs that encouraged pursuing such things.

There is su

We can talk about the white room of abstract systems, or we can talk about how those systems were actually used at the table.

I've played BECMI, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e. I've played in BECMI and 2e games that were low/no lethality. I've played in later editions that were very high lethality. I stand by the idea that it's more about the DM than the edition. Granted, I've also played earlier edition games that were high lethality, and later edition campaigns that were low lethality. It comes down to the DM more than any other factor IME.

If you want to argue that earlier editions had a higher prevalence of random death (where it's entirely up to the dice and the player doesn't have much input in the process beyond rolling) then sure, I'd agree with that.

That the random lethality of earlier editions was such that it made the game more challenging than later editions? No, I don't agree with that.

Random lethality is a particular type of lethality, but it isn't inherently more challenging than other forms of lethality. In fact, I would argue it is inherently less challenging, since it is entirely based upon luck, rather than skill. Any edition can be run in a lethal or non-lethal manner, depending on the DM.

Regarding lethality back in the day, I started in '86. I can't comment on the very early days. But one thing I will say is I think it is really hard to say what the overall gaming culture was at that time because things really did vary tremendously from table to table. There was no internet, this was a new hobby (even in 86 it still felt new), and going from one table to the next play assumptions could be wildly different. My impression just from reading and playing games, reading stuff like Dragon, etc was things were more lethal and I started seeing a shift away from lethality during the 2E era when focusing more on story became the thing (sometime by the mid-90s is when I first started to hear don't kill players unless they do something really, really stupid, for example). It definitely felt like the system was got less lethal from 3E on to me. My sense was that the GM advice by the mid 2E era was leaning heavily towards being less lethal, and by 3E and 4E the system had caught up with that advice more. Of course the GM is important. If the GM throws a bunch of deadly encounters at the party, even with HP inflation, the PCs can die more easily in a grittier version of the game with a more gentle GM. But I did notice more of a tendency, especially at the early levels for things like characters getting one shotted out of the blue to be a possibility in the earlier days of play. I also noticed more acceptable and excitement around mechanics like level drain (which definitely become much controversial and less powerful over time). There isn't one right way to do it. I tend to prefer more lethal games. Just my preference.

Also this is just D&D. There were a bunch of other games being played at the time. One of the reasons I liked Cthulhu for example was it was more lethal and characters could go crazy. I found sessions of Cthulhu were almost always exciting and fun no matter what and generally chalked it up to the 'embrace the mayhem and unpredictably' of it. Can't speak to current editions of Cthulhu.

 

[MGibster]

One should try Supremacy (board game). It's amazing how many times everyone ends up nuking the planet...

My friends and I played quite a few Supremacy games and we had many of the expansions for it. It was generally a race to see who would end up with nukes first and win the game. We usually ganged up on the guy going for the nukes when possible.

Only goes to show we were lucky we somehow avoided that fate...if Supremacy is any indication...there are probably 75% of the alternate realities out there that got nuked to annihilation and everyone on that Earth is dead.

Part of the problem with any game is that the stakes are so low for the players. In the case of Supremacy, none of our actions in the game had any significant consequences in real life. None of us were burdened with the knowledge that our actions led the the death of billions, our families weren't at risk, we weren't any more prosperous when we sold our resources when the market was high, etc., etc. Once we finished nuking the world we could head up to 7-11 for a Big Gulp.

This translates to D&D in both positive and negative ways. The lack of real consequences enables us to send our characters into the Tomb of Horrors because who cares if my character dies? But it also enables players to have their characters mouth off to the Archduke, steal from a merchant, or kill a prisoner without a second thought.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can't believe how hard people push back against this fact every time I bring it up
Thank you.

Yep. Anecdotal evidence =/= evidence, and it's something people get tripped up about all the time.

"Older editions were more lethal"
"Not in my experience, so no they weren't."



People, as a whole, tend to play a game the way it was mechanically designed for the most part. And there are so many mechanical and design features of old school D&D that resulted in higher lethality compared to modern editions, that it should go without argument that the versions back then were more lethal. It would be like saying "The NSX is faster than an Accord" and replying with "In my experience we drove the NSX slower on the roads than the Accord, so no it's not." or "You could drive the NSX slower than the Accord as it's up to the driver, so no it's not."

I don't think it should be forgotten that in the early days, many of the "gotcha" things in the game, like mimics, green slimes, rust monsters, rot grubs, etc were created specifically as a way to defeat PCs who overcame previous things in the game. The design approach back then, because it was based on a wargame and RPGs were new, was "the players figured out how to beat these challenges, so lets invent some new ones to beat them until they figure that out too." I.e., it was still viewed as a competitive game where ideas like fail forward were not thought of.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

There are certain arguments in OSR/grognard circles that are bizarre and disconnected from reality, one of those being "the games weren't more lethal" (in the same way that some people will insist that 4e combat was deadlier than 3e combat). It's simply not true. A character in old school D&D rolls for hit points at first level, is immediately slain upon being reduced to 0 HP, and must endure a plethora of save-or-die and save-or-lose effects based on various monsters he encounters.

Whether or not an individual's group experienced this high lethality is irrespective to the reality of the game's design. While I'm loathe to question the veracity of these claims, I will say that individual's play experience is an outlier. It's the same way that certain groups boast that they went whole sessions in modern D&D without rolling dice or having a combat encounter. That's a nice anecdote, but the game is geared toward combat and all published adventures provide ample combat scenarios.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There are certain arguments in OSR/grognard circles that are bizarre and disconnected from reality, one of those being "the games weren't more lethal" (in the same way that some people will insist that 4e combat was deadlier than 3e combat). It's simply not true. A character in old school D&D rolls for hit points at first level, is immediately slain upon being reduced to 0 HP, and must endure a plethora of save-or-die and save-or-lose effects based on various monsters he encounters.

Whether or not an individual's group experienced this high lethality is irrespective to the reality of the game's design. While I'm loathe to question the veracity of these claims, I will say that individual's play experience is an outlier. It's the same way that certain groups boast that they went whole sessions in modern D&D without rolling dice or having a combat encounter. That's a nice anecdote, but the game is geared toward combat and all published adventures provide ample combat scenarios.

Are earlier editions more lethal just looking at the rules as written? I think it's reasonable to say so.

But has anyone actually claimed that older editions aren't more lethal, in this thread? I don't recall reading that (although, admittedly, I skimmed a lot of posts).

I put forth the claim that the DM is the more significant factor with regard to lethality (rather than edition). I think that's true.

I've also seen/made the argument that lethality does not necessarily equate to challenge, which I think is true. Which is not to say that challenge cannot derive from lethality, but rather that not all forms of lethality equate to challenge.

The lethality of earlier editions was heavily based around RNG. Players could often get around this by engaging in what is commonly touted as "skilled play". By engaging with the game asymmetrically, they could dramatically reduce or even eliminate the lethality of the game. Of course, there's literally nothing RAW preventing players from engaging with "skilled play" in any edition of the game (I've seen it done in every edition I've played).

However, "skilled play" does depend significantly on the DM. Even disregarding questionable DMing practices that could shut down asymmetrical play, the plan that DM Tom considers brilliant might have no chance of success under DM Bob.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The lethality of earlier editions was heavily based around RNG. Players could often get around this by engaging in what is commonly touted as "skilled play". By engaging with the game asymmetrically, they could dramatically reduce or even eliminate the lethality of the game. Of course, there's literally nothing RAW preventing players from engaging with "skilled play" in any edition of the game (I've seen it done in every edition I've played).

but the thing about skilled play is it is a response to the game being lethal. This is similar to how if you run a mafia RPG using a lethal system where one shot with a gun can kill a character, you are going to have a lot more talking strategizing, caution, and planned ambushes, than people charging into combat. The game may actually have less death as a result, but it is because the game is using a lethal system and the GM is willing to kill characters, so the players are adapting. With skilled play it is the same. You are engaging a dungeon environment cautiously and carefully because you know there could be a trap that will cut you in half if you step before you check.

 

[Fanaelialae]

but the thing about skilled play is it is a response to the game being lethal. This is similar to how if you run a mafia RPG using a lethal system where one shot with a gun can kill a character, you are going to have a lot more talking strategizing, caution, and planned ambushes, than people charging into combat. The game may actually have less death as a result, but it is because the game is using a lethal system and the GM is willing to kill characters, so the players are adapting. With skilled play it is the same. You are engaging a dungeon environment cautiously and carefully because you know there could be a trap that will cut you in half if you step before you check.

Any edition of the game can be highly lethal. The later editions simply have better tools for avoiding accidentally making your game highly lethal.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Random lethality is a particular type of lethality, but it isn't inherently more challenging than other forms of lethality. In fact, I would argue it is inherently less challenging, since it is entirely based upon luck, rather than skill. Any edition can be run in a lethal or non-lethal manner, depending on the DM.

I agree with this section, but I take issue with this part:

I stand by the idea that it's more about the DM than the edition.

The mechanical workings of earlier editions force the game to be more lethal than newer editions. Certainly, a GM might softball encounters in old school D&D, but there's only so much he can do against a game built around encountering monsters in a dungeon. The game is designed in a way that it breeds combat, and the combat design makes fighting a deadly affair. The GM's proclivities toward random encounters, monster selection, traps, and the likelihood of combat matter, but the actual game system is more lethal overall.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Any edition of the game can be highly lethal. The later editions simply have better tools for avoiding accidentally making your game highly lethal.

but they aren’t all as lethal by default. They don’t just have tools for making it possible to avoid lethality, they are less lethal systems. I don’t think that is a very controversial interpretation. I do agree the GM matters but so do HP totals and rules like you die when you reach 0. That isn’t accidentally lethal. That is a system where you are meant to die if you take 4 damage and your a first level wizard

 

[Thomas Shey]

Any edition of the game can be highly lethal. The later editions simply have better tools for avoiding accidentally making your game highly lethal.

I'm not sure that this sentence isn't putting some heavy lifting on "accidentally" here (which, admittedly you somewhat intended given the italics). I can't speak much of anything landing between OD&D and D&D3 (though what I saw of the systems in AD&D1 doesn't tell me much had changed in this regard as of then, at least), but I think barring house rules to avoid it, it was very, very difficult to not have a high lethality level at least at the lowest levels in OD&D. You'd virtually have to avoid any danger at all, because there was simply so little slack between "this can be a risk" and "you're dead". It wasn't so much accidental as close to mandatory if you were running the game in any respect like what it seemed like was intended; the moment the combat system was engaged at all with first level characters it was exceeding likely someone would bite it. It was virtually unavoidable.